PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Dino Chicken

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory
by Jonathan Sarfati

22 August 2002
Subsequently published in
Creation 25(1):34–35, December 2002 – February 2003.


Dinosaurs & The Bible DVD

by David Catchpoole

Has anyone ever seen a real live dinosaur? Do dinosaurs prove that the Bible is wrong? What happened to the dinosaurs? A brilliant illustrated presentation that lets you find out the answers to the most-asked questions about dinosaurs, and why everyone should know about them. (High School–Adult) 52 mins.

While it’s widely treated as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs, Genesis is perfectly clear that dinosaurs—land animals—were created one day after the birds. And a minority of evolutionists still resist the dino-to-bird theory on scientific grounds (see Did birds really evolve from dinosaurs?).

The leader of the evolutionary objections for many years has been Dr Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999). He has pointed out many anomalies, e.g. the allegedly birdlike dinosaurs are ‘dated’ 25–80 million years after the oldest true bird they are supposed to have evolved into. And the theropods had curved, serrated teeth while the ‘oldest’ birds such as Archaeopteryx had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. He explains the superficial similarities between birds and dinosaurs as convergent evolution, i.e. where different groups evolve similar structures because of a similar lifestyle, in this case walking upright on two hind legs. Creationists would explain this as evidence of a common designer who designed similar structures for similar purposes.

Feduccia published a significant paper in Science1 showing that ‘birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related.’2 We reported on this and other current discoveries in Dino-Bird Evolution Falls Flat! (1998).3

Now Feduccia and a new Ph.D. graduate, Julie Nowicki, have refined the embryological study and published their findings in the leading German biological journal Naturwissenschaften.4 They opened a number of ostrich eggs to examine the embryos at various stages of development. Most studies had concentrated on embryos in the second half of development, when most of the structures are fully formed and merely need to grow. But Feduccia and Nowicki found that the main skeletal features in ostriches, supposedly ‘primitive’ birds, develop between days 8 and 15 of the 42 days in the egg.

The research conclusively showed that only digits two, three and four (corresponding to our index, middle and ring fingers) develop in birds. This contrasts with dinosaur hands that developed from digits one, two and three. Feduccia pointed out:

‘This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible.’4

If the birds evolved from dinosaurs, then one would expect common genes. These in turn would code for a common development in the embryo. But this is not so here, hence Feduccia is right to argue against the dinosaur-to-bird theory. However, a common designer is a coherent explanation for the fact that similar structures (in this case, three-fingered hands) are programmed to develop in totally different ways.


Diagram showing the difference in developmental patterns of frog and human digits.
Left: In humans, programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the ridge into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes) [after Sadler, T.W., ed., Langman’s Medical Embryology, 7th Ed., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 154–157, 1995].
Right: In frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide [after Tyler, M.J., Australian Frogs: a natural history, Reed New Holland, Sydney, Australia, p. 80, 1999].
This is not the only example where superficially homologous structures actually develop in totally different ways. One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide (see diagram, right).

This difference is even more striking than that discovered by Feduccia which he published in prestigious journals and which he (correctly) used as evidence against the dino-to-bird theory. So, logically, this huge difference in limb formation should likewise be regarded as evidence against a common ancestor for humans and amphibians. In other words, as evidence against the entire evolutionary ‘big picture’.

Wider application: We have often noted that discoveries that supposedly support evolution are trumpeted throughout the world’s media; but when they are refuted, even by evolutionists, they are rarely given the same prominence. A notorious example was the alleged life in the Martian meteorite, now almost universally discredited as being of non-biological origin. Similarly, there was almost no publicity of this research by a leading paleo-ornithologist undermining the dino-to-bird dogma, in contrast to claims in National Geographic that dino-to-bird evolution was conclusively proven by the new fossil ‘Archaeoraptor’. But this turned out to be a fraudulent ‘Piltdown Bird’.

We hope readers of Creation magazine and this web site will fill this gap by spreading the true information as widely as possible.


---

Vestigial digits?

Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional

by Dr. Jerry Bergman & Dr. George Howe

Do you remember being taught that we had organs in our body that were useless leftovers of our evolutionary ancestry? In this fascinating book, the authors dispel these still-continuing myths, and reveal how these organs are actually evidence of being created by a Master Designer! Deals with the appendix, “fifth toe,” wisdom teeth, and many others.
Feduccia’s Naturwissenschaften paper also presented ‘the first concrete evidence for a thumb in birds.’ In ostriches, the thumb appears around day 14 and disappears around day 17. But in dinosaurs, there are supposed vestiges of digits four and five in bumps on early dinosaur skeletons.

However, these are not proofs of evolution, and one should be especially wary about jumping to any conclusion on such a recently discovered phenomenon. Rather, it’s likely that these ‘vestiges’ are aspects of the program designed to develop the embryo. At least two possibilities which apply in other creatures could apply here:

Sometimes one structure in the embryo is necessary to trigger other structures, and once the other structures have formed, the first one has done its job and disappears. For example, the embryos of baleen whales have tooth buds that are later reabsorbed so the adults have no teeth. However, the teeth have a completely different disposition in both form and number from those in toothed whales, and have a crucial role in guiding the developing massive jaw, acting as points on which the developing bone moulds itself. So it’s possible that the ostrich thumb and extra dinosaur digits have a role in guiding the hand’s development.
Another explanation for a ‘vestigial’ organ applies to male nipples. They are caused by the common embryological plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to male and female—again an example of ‘design economy’. Nipples are a part of this design economy. Similarly, the vestigial digits could be part of a design economy that modifies one of the many embryonic development programs that produce the pentadactyl limb pattern. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model.



-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 3:56 PM on September 22, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The leader of the evolutionary objections for many years has been Dr Alan Feduccia,

Why do you keep using Feduccia???  He is in the tiny minority discounting dino to bird evolution but he believes in reptile to bird evolution!  So you admit that birds evolved from reptiles not dinosaurs...You lose then since you claim that birds didn't volve, they were specially created!

From here:
DinoBird

"Cathy Forster is most famous for her dinosaur-bird evolution theory. Forster did not make the theory up herself, but she has strengthened it. She recently published a report on the find of the Madagascar theropd, which is closely related to birds. She says the find fits very nicely and is importat new data in the theory. Forster says her argument is very strong, but some people tend to ignore the evidence. "When you hold a bird specimen up to a dinosaur, they are very identical," Forster says. One of the most interesting projects Forster has taken up is the describing of a raven sized bird with many dinosaur features, including a claw. Forster explained that the creature had the wing structure of a bird but a long tail and deadly claw of a dinosaur, that resemble features in theropods. Forster said the fossil may be the "strongest last nails in the coffin," for those who do not believe in the evolution. Forster named the new species Rahona ostromi, which means "Ostrom's menace from the clouds," honoring John Ostrom, who was one of the early supporters of the theory. The fossil was found in a quarry in Madagascar, where Forster has lead many missions. Forster says that Rahona is the earliest know true bird."

From here:
DinoBirdII

"In a nutshell, the majority of palaeontologists working on the ancestry of birds agree that dinosaurs, particularly small theropods, are the grandparents of present-day parrots, partridges and pigeons. There are some detractors to this emerging orthodoxy but the dino-bird theory is supported by both the most widely used methodology (cladistics) and a rapidly growing collection of primitive birds and advanced meat-eating dinosaurs. A reasonable assessment of the debate would have to conclude that it's all over, including the shouting, in favour of dino-birds."

OK, let's tear into the specifics of your claims:

While it’s widely treated as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs, Genesis is perfectly clear that dinosaurs—land animals—were created one day after the birds.

And we can see that this is totally wrong, since dinosaurs are found much earlier in the fossil record than birds.

He has pointed out many anomalies, e.g. the allegedly birdlike dinosaurs are ‘dated’ 25–80 million years after the oldest true bird they are supposed to have evolved into.

Out of date info, new discoveries have disproven this claim.

And the theropods had curved, serrated teeth while the ‘oldest’ birds such as Archaeopteryx had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth.

Out of date claim, early theropods had unserrated teeth.  From here:
Dinoteeth
"Several interesting characters of Byronosaurus jaffei have implications both for theropod relationships and for understanding patterns of variation within coelurosaurian theropods. These include the position of a foramen that marks the exit of the supra-alveolar canal (which we suggest is homologous with the subnarial foramen), the flattened internarial bar, the unusual interfenestral bar, and the unserrated teeth."

He explains the superficial similarities between birds and dinosaurs as convergent evolution, i.e. where different groups evolve similar structures because of a similar lifestyle, in this case walking upright on two hind
legs.


New data, new fossils have shown Feduccia to be wrong.

Creationists would explain this as evidence of a common designer who designed similar structures for similar purposes.

When it comes to sceince, we've proven creationists are always wrong.

Feduccia published a significant paper in Science1 showing that ‘birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related.’2 We reported on this and other current discoveries in Dino-Bird Evolution Falls Flat! (1998).3

Already showed this is out of date and srong, why do you still use it????

If the birds evolved from dinosaurs, then one would expect common genes.

Yes and this is exactly what we've seen, from here:
TyrannoBird

"For the first time, researchers have read what they say is the biological signature of a tyrannosaur — a signature that confirms the increasingly accepted view that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs."  

and from the same site:

"After analyzing the tissues under a microscope, Schweitzer reported in 2005 that they looked similar to the cells and blood vessels found in ostrich bones. But at that time, "we could not directly address what that material was made of," she said during a teleconference with journalists this week.

Schweitzer suspected that some of the material was preserved collagen protein — which is the main organic constituent of bone, left behind when the minerals are removed. She said the material looked like collagen, and it reacted like collagen when chicken antibodies were applied to a sample."

Once again, you've tried to pass off old, out of date data, data that has been disproven.  You have been proven wrong, your sources have been proven wrong.  An honest person would admit their mistakes but not you, you're just a typical, willfully ignorant creationist.



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:08 AM on September 24, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From here:
DinoBird

"The new finding is just the latest example of how remarkably alike modern day birds and their closely related dinosaur ancestors were, said study team member Mark Norell, a curator in the AMNH’s Division of Paleontology.
“Both have wishbones, brooded their nests, possess hollow bones and were covered in feathers,” Norell said. "If animals like Velociraptor were alive today our first impression would be that they were just very unusual looking birds."

Current evidence completely supports dinosaur to bird evolution.  You keep using out of date, debunked information that is no longer valid.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:53 PM on September 24, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, I have finaly come to the conclusion that you simply do not want to properly debate, you just want to argue. You have insulted me often and I will have no more. I have concluded that you have wasted my time and I shall no longer post here untill someone other then you, such as ProEvo. will debate and look at all my evidence first before making conclusions. Untill then, Good bye.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:00 PM on September 24, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry that you feel that way.  I think I did debate prperly.  I rebutted your claims, I answered your questions, I posted sources for all the points I made.  Yet you would ignore my answers and use the same invalid arguments over and over again, even after they were proved wrong.  Hey, I tried to answer most of your questions, you ignored most of mine.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:03 AM on September 25, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I gave u a 40 minute video and u watched 5 seconds and dumped it. same with my 9 pages of evidence agaisnt evolution.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:10 AM on September 25, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I gave u a 40 minute video and u watched 5 seconds and dumped it.

Because after 5 seconds it showed that the video was completely inaccurate.  It showed that it doesn't understand what evolution is or how it works.  It made a common creationist mistake when it said evolution is a product of chance, evolution is NOT a product of chance.  With this crucial misunderstanding, how can anything on the video be considered accurate?

same with my 9 pages of evidence agaisnt evolution.

And I answered your 9 pages of evidnce against evolution.  When I pointed out the numerous mistakes it made, and supported my claims with evidence, you ignored my responses.  Seems to me the ball was in your court and you fumbled it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:49 AM on September 25, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.